[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>To qoute you, how do you arrive at this conclusion? It would depend on the revolution wouldn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Iraq is a nation of downtrodden people, many of whom suffer from malnourishment and diesease (thanks, UN sanctions!) headed by a brutal dictator who maintains his power through political killings and torture.

Tell me, New, how would a revolution from the downtrodden against a military tyrant *not* be horrific and bloody?

No Bunge you miss my point. Why would the planners care if the "shields" were there? "Let's not destroy that silo, there's a guy down there with a tambourine and a deeply held belief that he is really important " I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

There is a precedence for peacful revolutions to, several times over. Are you at all familiar with eastern Europe?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Seems warped to me that you all will criticize them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The reason I critisize them is because they let go of all control. When I and 14.999.999 others are used in Saddams propaganda as an example of how evil US is and how nice he himself is I can go out and voice my opinion against that. Its much more difficult when you sit in a city you know zip about and wants to protect someone and those who are to tell you how to do it have no interest in you as a person and no interest in those you want to protect but 100% intererst in something completly different.

People interested in risking their lifes for the Iraqi people should join the kurds or some other resistance group and go fight the rule of Saddam. Perhaps it would prevent the bloodbath that bombing large civilian cities from 30.000 feet up or 100 miles away always will be. The problem of course being that you risk that your group will be labeled as a terrorist group or as "illegal combatant" or someone fight you under the protection of the NATO umbrella. Three senarios not out of the question regarding the Kurds.

I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And this was not the case in, say, Poland?

Or take Romania, where the regime-change turned violent (though limited). Was not the regime of Ceausescu comparable to Saddam in a lot of ways?

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

[quote]Originally posted by Alex London:
<strong>No Bunge you miss my point. Why would the planners care if the "shields" were there? "Let's not destroy that silo, there's a guy down there with a tambourine and a deeply held belief that he is really important " I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I do get the point. I think you're missing mine though. The shields have gotten their anti-war message out. They most likely know the silos will still be blown up regardless.

And why would the planners care? The DON'T, but they should. When a Palestinian steps onto a bus with 4 Israeli troops and 30 civilians, he's a terrorist. When an American plane bombs a water treatment plant with zero military personel and 2 US Human Shields, what do we call the US Military?

"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq

Is the situation in Iraq anything like Eastern Europe at the end of the cold war? Was there the Solidarity movement? The Glastnost policy? Was there a cultural hatred of the infidel West? Was there a highly blakanized po[ulation in places like East Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic, where the fall of the Soviet Union had critical mass appeal? Well, there was the economic hardship no thanks to sanctions that only hurt the civilians of Iraq, but I've heard the economy is actually getting along just fine in Iraq these days.

Sure, it's not out of the question that there could be a popular revolt against Hussein that was successful. Is it a good idea to encourage that but not support it and watch tens of thousands die in the attempt, like what happened last time? Isn't that more cruel than just jumping our military in there and doing the job? While people in Iraq would resent us for encouraging this path and not helping, they would also be resentful of us doing the dirty work for us, so that's wash I think. What would really save the most lives, that is, of those who deserve to live?

A nation where political dissent is met with murder. I hate to say it New, but you sound very very sheltered when you propose peaceful revolution in Iraq.

There's no bloodless way out of this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

History shows us that it doesn't get much more bloody than when the US (or the old colonial powers) intervenes militarily to orchestrate a regime-change. History also shows us that regimes like this don't last.

It is the Iraqis business to change their government. And yes, I believe it could be done more or less without major bloodshed.

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

[quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:
<strong>
People interested in risking their lifes for the Iraqi people should join the kurds or some other resistance group and go fight the rule of Saddam. </strong><hr></blockquote>

But they are actually, unlike scott believes, anti-war. So joining a different resistance group does nothing to help them further their beliefs. It would be impossible to join a violent resistance and continue to advocate for a peaceful resolution.

"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq

I said there is no bloodless way of doing it, in no nation where a man like Saddam was in power was there a peaceful rebellion. What Eastern European nation had a ruler like Saddam when the regime-change took place? Especially one where the West has taken to killing civilians to motivate them to undertake the rebellion for themselves?

[quote]Originally posted by Alex London:
<strong>" I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The comparison is not accurate. French's people wishes to be liberate from invaders aka Germans. I never heard someone complaining about US bombing.

At the contrary and unfortunately, Iraq's people even those who are opposed to Saddam don't want a war. The only one who are ready to help are the kurds, at the only condition that the turkish do not enter in their territorie. The sad story is that many arab people prefer to live under a dictature rather than a democratia build by the US.

No, I'm not saying every other regime change was, I'm saying they can be. And there are a lot of examples in South America and Asia as well.

[quote]<strong>I said there is no bloodless way of doing it, in no nation where a man like Saddam was in power was there a peaceful rebellion. What Eastern European nation had a ruler like Saddam when the regime-change took place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost all of them, Romania would be the perfect example. Saddams secret police are nothing compared to Securtate.
[quote]<strong>Especially one where the West has taken to killing civilians to motivate them to undertake the rebellion for themselves?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo! Now you get it.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>No, I'm not saying every other regime change was, I'm saying they can be. And there are a lot of examples in South America and Asia as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bloodless revolutions against brutal military dictators in South American!? PLEASE point one out. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

A lot of those nations can't have a soccer match without killing 6 thousand people.

[quote]<strong>Almost all of them, Romania would be the perfect example. Saddams secret police are nothing compared to Securtate.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bloodless? No.
I believe I said "bloodless", don't try to twist what I say.

Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people.

[quote]Bloodless revolutions against brutal military dictators in South American!? PLEASE point one out.

A lot of those nations can't have a soccer match without killing 6 thousand people. <hr></blockquote>
Well, the process of going from military dictatorship to democracy has been far less bloody for most of these countries, than the installment of the dictatorships was. Considering the relationship between the US and some of these dictators, I'd say US influenced regime-change in has been by far bloodier than the process of getting rid of these dictators.

BTW, I used the term regime-change and not revolution at this particular point.

The fotball comment is just silly.
[quote]bloodless? No.
I believe I said "bloodless", don't try to twist what I say. <hr></blockquote>
Concerning Romania, I never said it was bloodless, I said Ceausescu was comparable to Saddam. Worse maybe. Now you are twisting my words.

But many of the other regime-changes were bloodless or close to it. And the leaders weren't exactly doves either.

[quote] Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people. <hr></blockquote>
Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.

Not to mention where international law approves of this.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.

[quote]Originally posted by The Installer:
<strong>
It appears that Turkey does not seem to like the U.S. (or maybe just her postering president) much either. Where to now I wonder...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Islamacists now hold sway in Turkey. It is a temporary aberration, I hope. Hopefully in the next elections a friendlier parliament will be elected.

The last time that we listened to domestic and international peace-niks, Viet Nam fell. Cambodia followed.

Never Again.

Never Again.

This surgery has to happen. There is no other option. We are not going to let Saddam or his morally retarded son support human scum who will kill more Americans (and we don't want to see anymore Americans killed, do we?).

Besides, you think that Gulf War One was an exercise in ass-kicking? Just y'all wait. We're going to make Iraqi Armed Forces envy their brothers on the 'Road of Death'.

UPDATE:
There IS a way that this could be a 'bloodless war'!
From Newsmax:
[quote] Iraqi Soldiers Ready to Surrender

There are lots of jokes about French soldiers carrying white flags with them, but now it's the Iraqi troops who are preparing to surrender.

"Morale is low in the Iraqi army and many soldiers are preparing white flags of surrender, we are told by someone in northern Iraq who recently interviewed two defectors from Saddam Hussein's army," the Washington Times reported today.

One, a captain who defected from the 5th Mechanized Division of the 1st Corps, based near the northern city of Kirkuk, said the heavy division was only 35 percent combat-effective. Morale is so low that younger soldiers speak openly about surrendering before a shot is fired, he said.

The second escapee, a senior noncommissioned officer, defected from the same division's 34th Brigade, based south of the northern city of Mosul. He said that only 6 of the 28 tanks in his care worked.

"He said the whole division was at about 25 percent effectiveness and most soldiers were hiding their white flags," said the Times' source.

Intelligence sources in northern Iraq, where CIA Special Operations Group officers and Army Special Forces are active, report dozens of defectors in recent weeks.

The folks in Baghdad, meanwhile, are still ignoring their dictator's order Wednesday to dig trenches in preparation for war, the Boston Globe reported today.

"Five years ago, people would come in and change at the slightest hint of fighting," a 25-year-old named Salman told the Globe. "Now we are used to this atmosphere."
<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by zKillah:
<strong>The Islamacists now hold sway in Turkey. It is a temporary aberration, I hope. Hopefully in the next elections a friendlier parliament will be elected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I can tell it wasn't the islamist that tipped the vote. It was the secular guys. The president was in favor of the vote. Strange huh?

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well, the process of going from military dictatorship to democracy has been far less bloody for most of these countries, than the installment of the dictatorships was. Considering the relationship between the US and some of these dictators, I'd say US influenced regime-change in has been by far bloodier than the process of getting rid of these dictators.

BTW, I used the term regime-change and not revolution at this particular point.

The fotball comment is just silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The South American question is unrelatable to Iraq. In the South American nations our government decided to support and arm rebel groups (or the dictator) to install what we wanted. (This is the route Al Gore proposed taking against Iraq when asked during the Presidential debates, btw.)

[quote]<strong>Concerning Romania, I never said it was bloodless, I said Ceausescu was comparable to Saddam. Worse maybe. Now you are twisting my words.

But many of the other regime-changes were bloodless or close to it. And the leaders weren't exactly doves either.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And since you don't know what the forthcoming war will be like you cannot make a judgement that it will be more bloody. We are 12 years more advanced militarily than Persian Gulf 1.0 and the vast majority of weapons we used then were dumb (although they showed the smart ones on TV). It is very very possible that we get through this with significantly less loss of civilian life.

[quote]<strong>Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Aries 1B:
<strong>The last time that we listened to domestic and international peace-niks, Viet Nam fell. Cambodia followed.

Never Again.

Never Again.

This surgery has to happen. There is no other option. We are not going to let Saddam or his morally retarded son support human scum who will kill more Americans (and we don't want to see anymore Americans killed, do we?).

Besides, you think that Gulf War One was an exercise in ass-kicking? Just y'all wait. We're going to make Iraqi Armed Forces envy their brothers on the 'Road of Death'.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>The South American question is unrelatable to Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why did you ask me to elaborate on it? I think its related because it shows that US foreign policy has never been about making things better for the people.
[quote] And since you don't know what the forthcoming war will be like you cannot make a judgement that it will be more bloody. We are 12 years more advanced militarily than Persian Gulf 1.0 and the vast majority of weapons we used then were dumb (although they showed the smart ones on TV). It is very very possible that we get through this with significantly less loss of civilian life.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, you might win it very easily, at least the first part. But you don't know that. UN estimates on possible civilian casualties are disturbing. Not only casualties of the direct combat, but of the humanitarian situation that follows. With the destruction of the infrastructure.
I'm really more concerned with what comes after the war. The US ambitions for the region laid down in "The National Security Strategy" are very disturbing. The whole idea of imposing freedom on the world by war is quite self-contradictory. Being in favor of a war because its easy to win is pure hypocrisy.
History repeating itself.
[quote]Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people. (...)
guess that means you can't.<hr></blockquote>
You're making up rules that are impossible to play by, and being childish at the same time. I've given plenty of good examples. Deal with them.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

I don't have a great understanding of Vietnam, but my current understanding is that Vietnam fell because we were "holding a line" w/o a clear endgame rather than conquering a country outright. Things could have been different if the objective was different (or we could have lost just the same, as well, but there would be no ambiguity over it).

[quote]<strong>So why did you ask me to elaborate on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because you said you could. I'm all about giving people rope to hang themselves with.

[quote]<strong>I think its related because it shows that US foreign policy has never been about making things better for the people.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This may be one of the more foolish and bitter things I've ever seen you post.

[quote]<strong>Yes, you might win it very easily, at least the first part. But you don't know that. UN estimates on possible civilian casualties are disturbing. Not only casualties of the direct combat, but of the humanitarian situation that follows. With the destruction of the infrastructure.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The UN's estimates on continued sanctions and humanitarian concerns are also disturbing.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take the one that gives the people a chance at real self-governing by forcibly ousting their oppressor.

[quote]<strong>I'm really more concerned with what comes after the war. The US ambitions for the region laid down in "The National Security Strategy" are very disturbing. The whole idea of imposing freedom on the world by war is quite self-contradictory. Being in favor of a war because its easy to win is pure hypocrisy.
History repeating itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What history is Bush wanting to follow? Others are pushing the idea of "containment", and they even use the word.
We aren't fighting Communism here, competely different.

[quote]<strong>You're making up rules that are impossible to play by, and being childish at the same time. I've given plenty of good examples. Deal with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And you make impossible claims and shriek when called on them as if you expect the mere fact that you make the claim to be backing enough. You've given ONE example (Romania) when pressed and even that isn't comparable.

but why was the Vietnam war fought in the first place? Thats a much more important question.

Of course it could have been won, with clear objectives, no press present etc. etc. But to what end?
Did communist Vietnam really turn out as dangerous as was said? Aren't relations with Vietnam quite good now, considering the circumstances? And haven't the been improving a lot lately?
So was the killing worth it? The Vietnamese are still suffering from the after-effects of that war so are many americans.
Seems to me like an enormous waste.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>The UN's estimates on continued sanctions and humanitarian concerns are also disturbing.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take the one that gives the people a chance at real self-governing by forcibly ousting their oppressor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I ever advocate sanctions? There are always more than two solutions to a problem. Unless you really believe in all that "Good versus Evil" crap.
[quote]What history is Bush wanting to follow? Others are pushing the idea of "containment", and they even use the word.
We aren't fighting Communism here, competely different. <hr></blockquote>
same shit, new wrapping.
[quote] And you make impossible claims and shriek when called on them as if you expect the mere fact that you make the claim to be backing enough. You've given ONE example (Romania) when pressed and even that isn't comparable. <hr></blockquote>
I said that there are examples all over the world of how non-violent, internal reform and regime-change has been successful, while US meddling never has.
I can see how this claim is disturbing to you, but you've really made no case against it.

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"